Slashdot Mirror


Zuckerberg Sues Hundreds of Hawaiians To Force Property Sales To Him (msn.com)

mmell writes: Apparently, owning 700 acres of land in Hawaii isn't enough -- Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has filed suit to force owners of several small parcels of land to sell to the highest bidder. The reason? These property owners are completely surrounded by Zuckerberg's land holdings and therefore have lawful easement to cross his property in order to get to theirs. Many of these land owners have held their land for generations, but seemingly Mr. Zuckerberg can not tolerate their presence so close to his private little slice of paradise. Landowners such as these came to own their land when their ancestors were "given" the land as Hawaiian natives. If successful in his "quiet title" court action, Mr. Zuckerberg will finally have his slice of Hawaii's beaches and tropical lands without having to deal with the pesky presence of neighbors who were on his land before he owned it. Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans? CNBC reports: "The cases target a dozen small plots of so-called 'kuleana' lands that are inside the much larger property that Zuckerberg bought on Kauai. Kuleana lands are properties that were granted to native Hawaiians in the mid-1800. One suit, according to the Star-Advertiser, was filed against about 300 people who are descendants of an immigrant Portuguese sugar cane plantation worker who bought four parcels totaling two acres of land in 1894. One of that worker's great-grandchildren, Carlos Andrade, 72, lived on the property until recently, the paper said. But the retired university professor told the Star-Advertiser that he is helping Zuckerberg's case as a co-plaintiff in an effort to make sure the land is not surrendered to the county if no one in his extended clan steps up to take responsibility for paying property taxes on the plots."

31 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. "The highest bidder"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who else is going to bid for land that's surrounded entirely by someone else's land, and subject to these kinds of legal encumbrances?

    The man is a bastard and a prime candidate for an urgent visit from a large group of people toting pitchforks and torches, if anyone can find any in present-day Hawaii.

    1. Re:"The highest bidder"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      In general, in Common Law, if you buy land that has known encumbrances, then you inherit the obligations that go with that encumbrance. I have land that has a water easement on it so people up the road can pump water from a creek nearby. Since that was attached to the land when I took possession, I'm obligated to allow the neighbors to continue to operate water lines. I can certainly try to buy them out or otherwise offer incentive for them to voluntarily vacate the easement, but if I go to a judge and demand he terminate the easement and kick my neighbors' water lines off my property, I'm going to be shown the door. Of course, I'm not a fucking dirtbag, so I accept certain limitations on my ownership that I voluntarily took on, and don't try to push people off with threats of legal action.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:"The highest bidder"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have similar easements and accesses in my neck of the woods. One of the most contentious where I live is public access to lakes (I gather this is also an issue in Hawaii with access to beaches). Basically the law says that landowners are certainly allowed to own land up to the beach, but they cannot own the beach or any stretch of the water. There are some slight variances on this principle for self-contained bodies of water, like artificial lakes, but in general, you can own land adjacent to a lake or stream, but you don't own the lake or stream, or the immediate vicinity around it. Further, there are public access points to the beach, which often do cross peoples' property, but by law the property owners cannot impede peoples' access to the lake, nor can they attempt to block the access points. Further, if they build warfs or boat launches, well, they're doing so on public land, so while they may be free to locate those structures there, they can't prevent other people from using them.

      Every year property owners around various lakes in the area try to block access trails, make absurd threats against people enjoying what constitute public lands, and generally be fucking assholes. That they bought this land knowing full well that they are not lawfully empower to prevent access is irrelevant. They're big crybabies who want to assert defacto ownership over land and water that explicitly does not belong to them, and never will.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:"The highest bidder"? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, this should backfire nicely.

      They should get together, offer Zuckerberg a bid of ONE PENNY for his 700 acres, and no one else should bid on them.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  2. May not be as bad as the clickbaity headline says by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA, it seems like these are old titles, many of the people who inherited them have no idea they "own" these properties, and thus haven't been paying property taxes on them since 180something.

    I don't much care for The Zuck, but before taking off on the all too predictable partisan political tears, people should inform themselves on which Supreme Court justices ruled which way on the Kelo decision.

  3. What is it about having money... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is it about having money that turns people into such assholes?

    I mean really, 700 acres? How can someone not find sufficient privacy for their family on 700 acres, even if it contains a few parcels he doesn't own?

    1. Re:What is it about having money... by RealGene · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is it about having money that turns people into such assholes?

      Let the record show that Zuckerberg was an asshole long before he had money.

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    2. Re:What is it about having money... by catmistake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ironically, the bigger assholes here are Zuckerberg's attorneys, and they're being assholes to Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg doesn't need to sue anyone, nor does he need to track down the owners, nor does he need any fucking attorneys to acquire ownership of that land, and he doesn't even need to buy it.. All he needs to do is pay the back taxes on it, continue paying the taxes on it, and live there 20 years while improving the property, and ownership of the land passes to him via Hawaiian adverse possession laws.

      Mr. Zuckerberg, your attorneys are fucking you. I hope you can enjoy it as much as everyone else is.

  4. Re:Zuckerberg by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think "Schwanzlutscher" is what you are looking for . . . but Arschloch is more appropriate, in this case . . . I'll try to think up something better, or ask some friends, since I am fluent in German, but not a native speaker . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Weird title uncertainty by XXongo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although I'm not a Zuckerberg fan, the headline is a little misleading. Apparently for most of these parcels, the actual ownership is unclear-- the ownership is split sometimes among hundreds of descendants of the original owners, and in some cases it's not clear who owns it, or if they're even alive or if they're not, who the heirs are. This seems to be the only way to clear title to the land.

  6. If it was me... by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wish I owned an acre of land right in the middle of where he wants to build his house. I'd put a big barbed-wire fence around it, park the biggest, ugliest, smelliest old trailer I could find on it, demand continued access rights and refuse to sell at any money.

  7. Re:Typical by qwerty823 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article, these are parcels of land that no one lives on, but more than one people *own*. What his case is doing is forcing the land to be sold so that those owners can come forward and get paid for it. Most owners don't even realize they own the land.

    So no one is being *forced out of their homes*. Basically they are getting money they didn't realize they had.

  8. Re:Zuckerberg by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's German for "Rich Pathetic Sociopathic Bastard..."?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:Zuckerberg by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Funny

    Zuckerberg

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Re:May not be as bad as the clickbaity headline sa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're not reading TFA correctly, because if they have " no idea " they own them then obviously they aren't crossing his property to visit property they don't care about.

  11. Native people are native? Shocking! by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans?

    Apparently everyone but the author. What a moron.

  12. Editorial Summary is Terrible by chispito · · Score: 5, Informative

    People have been saying it for years, but I really feel like this place isn't what it used to be. Here we have a terrible, click-baity headline followed by a terrible, lazily editorialized summary, none of which is "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that Matters."

    Really, does this impact us in some way that I'm not seeing? At least with stories about Steve Jobs's megayacht, there was a cool megayacht to be interested in.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Editorial Summary is Terrible by Notabadguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Relax - it's BeauHD, who is the absolute shitposter of Slashdot.

      It helps if you scroll through the editors, and pick and choose what to read. Assume that anything where BeauHD was the editor is going to be a cobbled together, misleading, politicized shitpost.

  13. The editors should have fixed the summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't have high expectations for the quality of the content on Slashdot, but this summary is particularly bad.

    Regardless of what your stance is on this matter, the fact remains that the summary is highly biased and editorialized, to the point of the entire submission being rubbish.

    Crap like

    Apparently, owning 700 acres of land in Hawaii isn't enough

    and

    but seemingly Mr. Zuckerberg can not tolerate their presence so close to his private little slice of paradise

    and

    will finally have his slice of Hawaii's beaches and tropical lands without having to deal with the pesky presence of neighbors who were on his land before he owned it

    and especially

    Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans?

    should have all been removed, and doing so would have made the submission far more informative and objective.

    The "Who knew ... just another kind of Native Americans?" junk is particularly stupid. The people called "Native Americans" today are just the descendants (ignoring how many of them are also descended from Europeans, sometimes proportionally more so than from non-Europeans) of the most recent waves of migration to the Americas from Eurasia. It's rarely mentioned how these later waves likely destroyed previous cultures in the Americas, such as the Clovis people, because that wouldn't fit with the leftist narrative of today's "Native Americans" being perpetual victims.

    The editors should have seriously reworked this submission's summary. Perhaps it would have been better just to throw it out completely, it's so inherently bad.

    This summary and all of its obvious bias just makes those against Zuckerberg's actions look like kooks and extremists.

    1. Re:The editors should have fixed the summary. by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Quite right. Exaggerating one's facts, even when in the right, is a common mistake when presenting one's case.

      It lends credence to the deniers, who can denounce everything you present in your argument if you stretch one or two facts.

      It is the polar opposite of fortuitous that this strategy is regularly employed in important debates like global warming and minimum wage.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:The editors should have fixed the summary. by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, if you go through the history of the Americas, you find a lot of records of one group pushing out another, as well as some pretty good evidence that groups did indeed get wiped out. (Proving it tends to require there be written records.) Pushing out native peoples is not a European invention; until modern times it and weather were the driving forces behind all human migrations, and it still drives a lot of migration to this day.

  14. Let's deal by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Hawaiians let us build our Thirty Meter Telescope, we will agree to cement Mark Zuckerberg into the foundation thereof.

  15. Re:700 acres??? by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Funny

    "640 acres should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  16. Re:Zuckerberg by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA. Ownership of a grant total of 8 acres entirely enclosed within Zuckerberg's land is unclear. Nobody lives there. Nobody's paid taxes on the land in decades. The lawsuit basically says, "step up or shut up." If anyone actually steps up and says, "It's mine, here's the taxes and the proof I own it," then it doesn't get sold.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  17. Re:Zuckerberg by tsotha · · Score: 5, Informative

    This. Despite the Power To The People headline, this is something he's forced to do under Hawaiian law if he wants to have any hope of a clear title to the property.

  18. Re:Zuckerberg by chipschap · · Score: 5, Informative

    More interesting is probably the term that Native Hawaiians are using to describe him, which would be "haole".

    Well, he is haole. The meaning of the word in the Hawaiian language is really "foreigner" but in common talk here, it has come to be a sometimes derisive term for a Caucasian. It can be, but is certainly not necessarily, racist or derogatory, and it isn't either of those in the true Hawaiian meaning of the word.

    The Zuckerberg development was the lead front page story in today's Star Advertiser (our local Honolulu newspaper). It seemed to be to be presented in a negative light, as in, here goes another rich haole from the mainland grabbing Native Hawaiian land. It's easy to see it that way but in Hawai`i hardly anything is simple or straightforward, and I'm reserving judgment until I learn more about it, though siding with Zuckerberg would be pretty distasteful.

  19. Bullshit summary and article by Macdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    The lawsuit(s) being filed are to determine ownership of the parcels of land. Not to force the sale of the land.

    Zuckerberg is suing to find out who owns the land so that he can negotiate to purchase the land from them. Right now he can't purchase the land because no one knows who owns it.

    He is not suing to force the sale, he is suing to make the sale possible.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  20. Jewish Surnames by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's please not. The reason his last name means "sugar mountain" in German is because in the late 18th Century the various Germanic empires forced all Jews to have surnames, instead of being known as (e.g.) Yeshua ben Youssef -- a patronym, not a surname. If your family was on bad terms with the local magistrate then you might have had a surname that was actually insulting rather than merely ridiculous. So unless you're interested in reviving a particularly vile brand of antisemitism, please let's not give this man an insulting surname, even if you think he deserves shame and ridicule.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Jewish Surnames by ghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So does being Jewish give you a pass for being an A*hole? Finally I understand Israeli behaviour.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Jewish Surnames by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's please not. The reason his last name means "sugar mountain" in German is because in the late 18th Century the various Germanic empires forced all Jews to have surnames, instead of being known as (e.g.) Yeshua ben Youssef -- a patronym, not a surname. If your family was on bad terms with the local magistrate then you might have had a surname that was actually insulting rather than merely ridiculous. So unless you're interested in reviving a particularly vile brand of antisemitism, please let's not give this man an insulting surname, even if you think he deserves shame and ridicule.

      There was nothing specifically antisemitic about these name changes. Efforts like these were a general trend during the enlightenment. All kinds of minorities and even entire nations were forced to change their age old naming conventions. This happened in large parts of Scandinavia for example where people were forced to abandon a traditional naming convention so old that it predated written history and replace them with the continental first/last name tradition. Various governments also tried to systematically exterminate minority languages and cultures such as Slavic languages in Germany, and Celtic languages in France, the UK and Ireland. The same happened to Native Americans in the US where the government even resorted to forcibly removing native children from their families, raising them in boarding schools and subjecting them to brutal discipline if they spoke their own language.

  21. Re:Zuckerberg by Alypius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ha-ole literally translates into "without breath" as Hawaiians in the time of Captain Cook's encounter greeted each other by touching foreheads together and exchanging breaths (the honi). Cook, obviously not Hawaiian, was unaware of the custom and didn't greet the Hawaiians in this way and was assumed to be "without breath." The term entered the vernacular and today is a pejorative for Caucasians.